If you have to ask the question then you don't understand the real issue.
Religious belief is 100% completely unprovable and relies on "faith" and good feelings as confirmation instead of tests and observation. (I would be wrong but is there a "god test" that can be performed to prove the existence?)
Religious people see this as "two sides opposing" because "everyone believes in something." That is also ridiculous. People who want to know and understand seek to learn by evidence, testing and experimentation. Religion offers none of this. In the end, religion fosters an end of knowledge in favor of belief. If there are two opposing sides of the issue, it is "persuit of knowledge" vs "belief." But no one on the religious side wants to admit that is the truth.
Not true - there are plenty of people on the "religious side" that don't find pursuit of knowledge and belief as mutually exclusive; in fact there are many who believe the two can and do coexist without contradiction. The position that evolution is science and provable and that God could be the force behind it are not contradictory.
If the nutjob who sued can't even understand what the first amendment protects, they sure as hell aren't going to distinguish between those who say creationism isn't a science (I say that and I am an evangelical Christian) and straight out attacks against religion.
P.S. I am an Australian and I find it sad that I know more about the US constitution than most Americans and the talking heads on TV.
While I agree with your assessment of the Constitution and most American's understanding of it; I don't think you grasp one of the key components of American evangelic fundamentalism - they need to feel under attack - just like Jesus was - to feel they are right. It's about suffering for your religion; and they see an attack on Jesus, God, and them in every action that is not in line with their "beliefs." I say their beliefs, in quotes, because they are often at odds with accepted theology - which furthers their position that they are right. If you really want to have fun with the creationism - evolution debate, point out that the Catholic Church has said the two are not at odds. Bonus points if you say "The Mother Church, God's own One and Catholic..."
To many, everything the government does that does not fit within their POV is anti-Jesus; and they can't take critical thinking because if one small part of their structure cracks it will all come tumbling down. After all, God said it, I believe it, and that ends it is their motto.
Not all, but the most visible seem to adhere to that mind set. there are plenty of others who simply go about their lives being teh best person tehy can; but unfortunately they don't make headlines.
You are think of this all wrong. rather than view it as yet another intrusive attempt to gather data and make money off of it; think of it as an opportunity to Slashdot ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H educate content creators
1. Hook up an IR sender to your computer
Scrape TV listings
Create open source show selector, channel changer, and URL generator
Watch favorite show 24/7
Profit? That's the content creators problem, you just don't want your show cancelled.
Seriously, properly done the noise will cancel out the signal. Even better of course, would be a spoofed data stream....
Certainly not TFA. My beef is with the iTunes store - to buy an album here costs AU$17.00 (US$17.63), a huge hike over the $10 price the US enjoys.
If I wanted an iPad, I could always import one from the US, but I can't buy an album from the US iTunes store; they refuse to sell it to me, which is a restriction of trade under Australian law, and something the ACCC has ruled is illegal, at least when applied to physical music media like CDs.
A few thoughts:
Apple may be restricted by the content providers, through different licensing schemes, on what they can sell where; so the US store may not be licensed to sell content overseas.
Even though you can access the US store; it doesn't do business in Australia so it's not really relevant to talk about restraint of trade; simple access to an online store does not constitute, IMHO, doing business in the location that is accessing the site.
It seems there would be an arbitrage opportunity for people to buy US$ iTunes cards to sell in Australia; if i recall correctly all you need is a method of of payment, not a credit card. Buy in bulk, FedEx to Aussie land, sell for a 20% markup and still be cheaper as long as the AU$ is strong.
Finally, where do I insert the comment that all the Aussie posters speak pretty good English for being citizens of a small, landlocked German speaking country?
Interestingly, the GPL places no restrictions on reusing and charging; as long as you comply with the requirements to make the source available, you can charge what you want.
I wish more software under the GPL had a pay-for-download option. Especially software in the Android marketplace. I would like to help the authors continue to make improvements and more good software. But almost invariably software that actually complies with the Open Source definition (and especially GPL software) is only available for free.
I agree. The issue is anyone can take the code and charge a bit less, making your model difficult to implement. I think Apple's walled garden actually offers the best way to do what you describe. An org such as EFF could act as the custodian and put apps on the app store. They would collect the fees and reimburse the developers. Apple would not host other instances of the same code. Granted, this works best for code from one or two developers but it could be a start to making OSS software better.
I'm one of the people who says that. And I agree with you. This isn't theft. It's a copyright violation.
Just because I think calling copyright violation 'theft' is highly misleading doesn't mean that I don't think copyright should exist. And this case, someone repackaging someone else's work in order to make a profit, is a case I think is clearly wrong.
I think we in agreement on this; without copyright the GPL would be useless. I just find the arguments that some, not necessarily you but others on/.,make to rationalize copyright violations when pirating movies, music, or software while vociferously attacking anyone who commits, or is believed to have committed, a GPL violation. I find that hypocritical, despite the long winded rationals some make. You can't have the GPL and worship at the alter of "I should be free tio use copyrighted material in any way I want even if the owner of the copyright doesn't give me permission to do so."
In this case, the software may not even violate the GPL (once the GPL's code is made available); because, as I understand it, it is permissible to wrap non-GPL code around GPL'd code if you don't actually incorporate the GPL'd code. You could, for example, create software that puts a GUI on it and even add features provided you pass the information to separate GPL'd code rather than adding it to yours. Some may disagree with that interpretation but that's as much a philosophical argument rather than a licensing one.
Interestingly, the GPL places no restrictions on reusing and charging; as long as you comply with the requirements to make the source available, you can charge what you want.
Probably because in the US you can travel 2x the distance from Spain to the UK and still not pay extra when you use your cell phone - the whole notion just because I cross on member state's border I should automatically be gouged for using a cell is a bit archaic.
Yeah, unless the distance I'm traveling just happens to take me across the border of Canada or Mexico, in which case that "archaic notion" that borders matter would still apply. Didn't NAFTA fix that?
It's one thing to consider the idea of the nation-state archaic, it's another to consider it irrelevant today.
True (although there are plans that avoid extra per day charges) - but the EU is ostensibly a "single entity' with respect to commerce and free movement of goods and people - similar in concept, if not execution, of the US' Federal system and individual states; whereas NAFTA's simply a trade agreement and not a political union. Nor does the US, Canada and Mexico have a joint military structure and political council to handle military affairs and common defense like much of the EU. I need show no passport going from Portugal to Spain to France or Germany and use the same currency, but my cell phone charges jump significantly? I can see where that is confusing and archaic; especially since the same countries often operate cross border anyway. It just lets them gouge their customers.
I bought a sim in London and then got to pay 2 pounds per day just to turn it on in Spain. What union/country/territory do you live in who's carriers have seemingly gotten it so right?
You're upset that a SIM bought in one country continued to work (for a fee) in a completely different country?
Probably because in the US you can travel 2x the distance from Spain to the UK and still not pay extra when you use your cell phone - the whole notion just because I cross on member state's border I should automatically be gouged for using a cell is a bit archaic. I mean, the EU and the US are roughly the same size and in theory the EU is a unified trading area.
MS is the typical fast followers - let someone else test the market; then jump in and take advantage of the new market while learning from the pioneer's mistakes. then push big to capture the market and crowd everyone else out. Once you're in you can expand and improve your product. It's been pretty effective for them over the years.
Can you learn a new language - sure. As another poster pointed out - is it worth it? Unless you want to compete in price with a bunch of newbies; probably not.
A development team or shop is like a baseball team
There is the rare superstar that gets top dollar because they can do things nobody else can' which is why they are rare and expensive.
There are a few solid players who have decent careers because they have a good skill set and can be depended on to deliver. they make a decent wage but no where near the superstars. They stick around.
The biggest group is the journeymen players - they hang around a few years but there is always a crop of younger, cheaper players coming up to replace them. they never get serious money. They get churned to control costs.
Then there are the managers and coaches. They are valued for their experience; they know the game, seen all the tricks and can guide a team to victory. The may not make superstar money but they are paid well and they have longevity (as long as they perform) and options to move if they do well. They stay up on the game but don't try to play. Plus they decide who gets to play, where they play and who stays and who leaves.
As others have pointed out, there's always someone whose cheaper or wiling to work for less when it's a pretty generic skill set. I'd use your experiences to move to a place where your knowledge and experience is what is valued; rather than try to build a new skill set. Learn new languages to be able to identify good vs. bad programming; but base your value on being able to identify problems before they hurt you or solve them as they come up.
I can't code a line (unless it is Fortran) but I can manage a team and clients to get the job done on schedule and budget. It can even be fun -I've never believed you need to be a jerk to be a manager.
I don't think I'm really all that limited by the Vic 20, vinyl records, and rotary dial phone paradigms I grew up with;) I just see a different vision of the wireless future than you do. I would say (and prefer) that we'll see a big, very powerful central computer in the house. It talks wirelessly to the pads, and phones, and workstations (what we used to call dumb terminals), and even the appliances, lights, HVAC, etc throughout the house. It does the high-load computing, passing its output on to the devices that are using it. Some of the attached devices -the pads, etc, will have their own processors as they do today, and so will be capable of operating standalone, but will still run to the master computer when an operation would take too long to carry out.
In many ways, this has already happened. (iPad + x10 + main computer) but the integration isn't all that good. Really, we're only waiting on someone to bridge the small gaps before this is a reality.
So sure, the "desktop PC" might not be on your desktop anymore (though people will still want big screens and non-tiny input devices, and so we'll still have workstations that look very familiar) but the idea that mobile devices are going to do all of our computing for us is a very long way from fruition.
I think we are in greater agreement than we think - I don't think the tablet will replace the Desktop PC's processing power - rather, as you say, it will do the lightweight work and drop the heavy stuff off to a server and essentially become a monitor. Whether the serve is local or remote will depend n things such as costs, security concerns, bandwidth costs and availability, etc. I could see a model where remote servers contain programs on a subscription or play per view model, eliminating the need for powerful home servers. As processing power increases in low power chips tablets will be able to handle more duties as well.
To me, it's not so much that tablets will have the power to replace desktops but rathe rteh desktop paradigm is becoming increasingly irrelevant and will ultimately disappear as we know it today.
Word processing - if you think RSS is an issue with a standard keyboard that has moving keys, try tapping away on a pad for 8 hours a day.
It would last 30 minutes before it needed recharging. And the recharging cable would make it more inconvenient to use than a standard PC.:-)
Not to long ago a laptop ran a couple of hours on a charge - my Mac easily gets 6+ hours - and it's smaller than my old laptops.. Assuming today's technology limitations will exist tomorrow is a bit short sighted.
The PC, as we used to know it - a big box that runs an OS and is not very portable and ties you to specific data storage locations and programs, is on the way out. It is being replaced by smaller, portable devices that perform the same functions (which still are important) but using different technologies and in some ways a completely different a paradigm ofh ow we accomplish a task.
In some areas, yes. But this "the PC is DOOOOMED!" football that the media kicks around seemingly every 2 weeks misses the point pretty spectacularly. The reason iPads and Droids and the other mobile devices are useful is because they're connecting to "oldschool" computers, whether dedicated webservers or your home PC.
Off the top of my head I can think of a whole lot of PC-based things that it would be difficult, and in some cases impossible, to replicate on a tablet:
Word processing - if you think RSS is an issue with a standard keyboard that has moving keys, try tapping away on a pad for 8 hours a day. Plus, without the physical 3-diminsional keys to provide tactile position feedback, typing speed would plummet. So anyone that needs to write anything more than brief emails and calendar entries is going to require a PC. (and don't come back with the "but you can hook keyboards up to tablets" argument, because once you do that, you have a laptop that you have to disassemble before you take it anywhere. I'll take the normal laptop, thanks). And really, this is inclusive of anything that requires any peripheral other than a stylus.
Any sort of "real" gaming. Sure, you can do Angry Birds, Tetris, and maybe even management simulations (Sims/Sim City/etc) on a tablet, but have fun with a driving game, a flight simulation, or a FPS. I've actually seen pathetic attempts at driving games on Android, where you tilt the whole device to replicate a steering wheel. That's neat, except that when I drive the whole world generally doesn't suddenly roll 45 degrees off kilter every time I hit a corner.
Anything where you want your data to be reasonably secured, and don't want to leave a faceless corporation in charge of securing it. I'm looking at you, Cloud.
And plenty of other crap that might be doable on a tablet, but is a whole lot more convenient and comfortable to do on a standard PC (video editing - as an editor I would be pissed if someone took away my dual 24" screens and replaced them with a tiny 10" tablet - Photoshop, etc)
I see tablets as becoming mobile extensions of the home PC, but the home PC will still be around, even if much of the time it basically acts as a server for the family's mobile devices.
I think your conclusion is the most telling - the paradigm will shift from "I use a PC" to "I have these devices that let me do my task." They may be connected to a local or remote server, but they'll replace the traditional PC as the way we do things. The function is still there, but not the same form.
Take your games example - you assume I must hold the tablet - there is no reason the tablet can't switch from tablet to monitor to play games, with a separate controller wirelessly connected. Same for the keyboard - a wireless portable keyboard is possible - but why not let your phone do dual use for the few times you need a keyboard and type like you text? Or, if it has gyros, why can't it act as a mouse, when you need one, with the screen replicating buttons. My iPhone already acts a track pad, it's not hard to imagine sliding it around instead of my travel mouse. With a bluetooth headset and voice command you could even continue to use it as a phone.Again - same function, different form. This isn't going to happen overnight but it is the future.
I agree on security - but most people won't care or understand the issues. Still, a tiny home server or NAS hidden in a closet will work if they want more security- same function, different form.
In some ways, that phone / netbook combo is pointing the way things are going.
Vacuum tubes produce a unique sound that digital doesn't replicate
I'd like to see *any study whatsoever* that demonstrates that this effect is anything but a placebo. Show me any case *at all* where somebody can consistently discern the difference between the two, all else being the same.
You've obviously never basked in the glow of tubes as your head leans against the Amp and you hear the gentle hum of the system as you fall asleep.
Seriously, here's one that discusses the technical aspects of reproduction differences:
The concept of the "post-PC" is nothing more than a dressed up dumb terminal.
True. I've made that argument to tech friends - that we're really just moving back to the "big iron" server and "dumb" terminal model that was prevalent pre-PC; except we call it the "cloud" and the terminal is not as dumb as a VT-100. What's old is new again, you just have to follow the fifth rule of consulting: "If you are selling old wine in new bottles, be sure to put a fancy new label on it so no one notices."
Seems to me that the trend isn't "the death of the PC" so much as "the rise of shiny toys for simpletons who don't know how to computer"
Never underestimate the power of large groups of idiots.
Use of traditional PCs might decline among those who want to use a computer the same way they use a microwave –to do a handful of simple pre-defined tasks, without any control or knowledge of the details– and maybe that's a big market segment these days, but I can't see myself replacing my big box any time soon.
True, but the segment you described is probably a significant percentage of the market; and as they move away from the big box, two significant things will occur:
The price of the tech they are moving to will drop; and,
the price of the big box will go up (and development stagnate) as the market shrinks and demand drops.
Both of which will hasten the transition.
I prefer the form factor, the desk setup, the ability to open the thing up and tinker with it, the extra power and storage... everything.
I agree, but most people probably don't value the same things. I'd bet most uses have never even opened the case. let alone upgrade a drive, memory or graphics card. The simply use it until it becomes old and buy the new shiny.; and if it's not like the old shiny they don't care.
I'm sure there's a shiny, hiney, shinola and bite my.. joke in there somewhere. I'm just to lazy to find it.
Me: "I'll take supposedly obsolete technology for $200"
Trebek: "the vacuum tube, typewriter, vinyl records, CRT and incandescent light bulbs"
Me: "What are things I have in my house"
*DING DING*
While in understand your point - I still have those as well, I think your comment misses the articles point:
The PC, as we used to know it - a big box that runs an OS and is not very portable and ties you to specific data storage locations and programs, is on teh way out. It is being replaced by smaller, portable devices that perform the same functions (which still are important) but using different technologies and in some ways a completely different a paradigm of ow we accomplish a task.
We still do the same things but what we use to do them changes - using your example, I still:
have a TV (but instead of a vacuum tube monster it uses solid state circuity); write letters (but with a Word processor and not a typewriter); listen to music (except it's digital not analog 90% of the time); look at a monitor (but solid state not cathode ray technology); and illuminate my room (more and more with low power bulbs rather than incandescent).
I think the real point is as technology changes previously ubiquitous things that are used to perform functions get replaced by newer things that do the same functions.
That doesn't mean the old tech is useless, it may even be better than what replaced it, but it becomes relegated to niche markets as mainstream users move to the new technology.
Vacuum tubes produce a unique sound that digital doesn't replicate - but for 99% of the market the reliability and low cost of solid state audio was good enough and so replaced tubes as the dominate product. Still, McIntosh, while a tiny part of the market, survives for those that want a different experience. All though they have gone solid state as well; but I would suppose with tighter specs than the mass market stuff.
Sometimes, even when the new stiff is better the old sticks around because it performs a task that the new tech doesn't - which is while dot matrix printers are still her as well as typewriters and fax machines.
Of course, in some cases the new tech still can't do everything old tech can - look at the pencil, for example.
The obvious application of this is advertising. Every business wants to sell something. If this research tells them how to convince you to friend them they will be all over it. Political organizations will do the same. I have to wonder if the basic concepts have broader applications outside social media.
While you probably could use it to say "do this to friend X" and there are probably some broad things that reach a large enough population it may not be all that useful for advertisers unless they want to target vary narrow groups. Now if they could put together enough variables so that only a small percentage of each is necessary to reach an audience and the entire set reaches multiple audiences then it may be useful; but we already call that marketing and advertising. They'd probably be interested in they could tell "this group is likely to be interested in buying x" where the profit is greater than the cost of reaching them; or the group is a fashion driver.
The real value of this is the pattern recognition and predictive ability; if you can predict, out of a large group, who is likely to share similar interest or be "friends" then you can target them. Not for advertising, but for other purposes. Suppose you are looking for specific skills - if you know y has them their potential friends might also have them - so you can expand a search. If you are looking for "sleeper" cells you could also use this to bring up a list of potential targets to investigate.
So, IMHO, the inherent "value" is the ability to use pattern recognition and predictive analysis to uncover potential hidden links; the ethics of that is a separate issue.
How many people are actively looking at ways to exploit Linux on the desktop? Very few I'd guess because it simply isn't a worthwhile target yet.
And yet here people are looking to attack Macs in the enterprise market, which is an even smaller target than Linux is in that sector. It just strikes me as odd, that if the only real protection that Linux has enjoyed is obscurity, then why is something that is even *MORE* obscure (enterprise Macintosh installations) targeted?
First, since the Mac has more name recognition than Linux it makes sense for a security researcher to focus on it rather than Linux in order to make the mainstream press.
Second, numbers put Apple's enterprise market share at around 5%, Windows at around 94%, leaving about 1% for Linux (and others). While Linux is strong in server markets, outside of specialty workstation areas it's still not a very popular desktop OS; which was what the exploit targeted.
It's my understanding that Linux has even more widespread enterprise adoption than Mac does... so does that mean that we get to see a Linux exploit next?
While Linux has a strong following in several critical areas of the enterprise, such a servers, this really wasn't about server exploits. Sure, it needed a server to work, but it really was about individual desktops and laptops being used to compromise others from an non-server machine. Since Linux has very low desktop / laptop adoption compared to even Macs I'd say it's doubtful anyone would even try to exploit it. Even if they did, someone would have to be actively looking to detect it - I doubt they'd simply submit a kernal patch to spread the exploit.
How many people are actively looking at ways to exploit Linux on the desktop? Very few I'd guess because it simply isn't a worthwhile target yet.
Unfortunately, in the end, he was no different than any social engineer who uses his or her skills to gain access by acquiring a legitimate set of login credentials by asking for it.
A social engineer has an element of deception. He flat-out asked for it.
I disagree that social engineering necessarily involves deception - it's simply using social skills to connect with the person who has the information you are seeking and convincing them to give it to you. Deception is not need to do that - you can often get what you seek simply by asking for it in a straightforward manner with, if asked, an honest explanation of why you want it. That said, he asked for it but then, according to TFA, used the information in a way that was not how he explained he planned to use it, so in this case I'd say it's not unreasonable to conclude he was being deceptive. Even so, being given someone's credentials, even if you simply asked them for it without being deceptive, does not authorize you to access their system; unless they have specific authority to grant you the right to use the credentials in such a manner.
At any rate, I think we both agree what he did was dumb considering he was in the midst of a lawsuit.
If Cisco did that they would be in a world of trouble when it was found out. Courts don't take lightly destroying evidence or committing perjury
That's not all far-fetched given Cisco's abuse of the legal system in this fiasco. I'm betting Cisco had to swear to many of the outright lies used to try to have him held and extradited.
Since it appears both sides have settled their differences nothing will probably come of it; unless the US Judge was sufficiently angered to decide to teach them a lesson. Unlikely, but a federal judge is not someone you want mad at you because of legal shenanigans.
He probably thought that a Cisco employee letting him in gave him some protection. It's not like he hacked or was even dishonest, basically asking a Cisco employee up front "can I use your account to see what I can get?" You don't do that if you have illegal purposes.
The problem is doing that and then accessing the network is illegal in and of itself. He was not authorized to use it once he left (an assumption since if he was he'd still have a id and pword) and then used someone else's login who probably was not authorized to allow him to use his login credentials. Unfortunately, in the end, he was no different than any social engineer who uses his or her skills to gain access by acquiring a legitimate set of login credentials by asking for it.
Sounds like he was playing private detective to discover what access engineers had, probably worried Cisco would switch around permissions if the info were asked for in the suit. Given that he would have had this type of access as a Cisco employee, I'm betting that he was checking to see if such access still existed for engineers, probably in response to Cisco saying engineers didn't have that kind of access.
If Cisco did that they would be in a world of trouble when it was found out. Courts don't take lightly destroying evidence or committing perjury. I was involve in a potential suit a while ago and the first thing our lawyers did was collect everyone's notes, disks, papers etc. pertaining to the issue and keep them safe so if they had to turn them over they could without any getting destroyed in the interim.
It is the antitrust suit he had going against Cisco. Cisco had locked out any other company that might want to provide maintenance for Cisco products, and that was the business his company was in, so he sued. He had been gathering evidence to use in the case against Cisco, and of course Cisco didn't want that.
Separate from the supposed anti-trust actions of Cisco, why would anyone do something that could be used against them by someone they were suing? You're basically giving them the club to beat you with; if you really need that information you should try to get it through the legal process. I have no idea what his motivations were, it just strikes me as odd to expose yourself the way he apparently did knowing your opponent is a very large company who can buy boatloads of legal advice.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have to ask the question then you don't understand the real issue.
Religious belief is 100% completely unprovable and relies on "faith" and good feelings as confirmation instead of tests and observation. (I would be wrong but is there a "god test" that can be performed to prove the existence?)
Religious people see this as "two sides opposing" because "everyone believes in something." That is also ridiculous. People who want to know and understand seek to learn by evidence, testing and experimentation. Religion offers none of this. In the end, religion fosters an end of knowledge in favor of belief. If there are two opposing sides of the issue, it is "persuit of knowledge" vs "belief." But no one on the religious side wants to admit that is the truth.
Not true - there are plenty of people on the "religious side" that don't find pursuit of knowledge and belief as mutually exclusive; in fact there are many who believe the two can and do coexist without contradiction. The position that evolution is science and provable and that God could be the force behind it are not contradictory.
If the nutjob who sued can't even understand what the first amendment protects, they sure as hell aren't going to distinguish between those who say creationism isn't a science (I say that and I am an evangelical Christian) and straight out attacks against religion.
P.S. I am an Australian and I find it sad that I know more about the US constitution than most Americans and the talking heads on TV.
While I agree with your assessment of the Constitution and most American's understanding of it; I don't think you grasp one of the key components of American evangelic fundamentalism - they need to feel under attack - just like Jesus was - to feel they are right. It's about suffering for your religion; and they see an attack on Jesus, God, and them in every action that is not in line with their "beliefs." I say their beliefs, in quotes, because they are often at odds with accepted theology - which furthers their position that they are right. If you really want to have fun with the creationism - evolution debate, point out that the Catholic Church has said the two are not at odds. Bonus points if you say "The Mother Church, God's own One and Catholic..."
To many, everything the government does that does not fit within their POV is anti-Jesus; and they can't take critical thinking because if one small part of their structure cracks it will all come tumbling down. After all, God said it, I believe it, and that ends it is their motto.
Not all, but the most visible seem to adhere to that mind set. there are plenty of others who simply go about their lives being teh best person tehy can; but unfortunately they don't make headlines.
You are think of this all wrong. rather than view it as yet another intrusive attempt to gather data and make money off of it; think of it as an opportunity to Slashdot ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H educate content creators
1. Hook up an IR sender to your computer
Scrape TV listings
Create open source show selector, channel changer, and URL generator
Watch favorite show 24/7
Profit? That's the content creators problem, you just don't want your show cancelled.
Seriously, properly done the noise will cancel out the signal. Even better of course, would be a spoofed data stream....
Certainly not TFA. My beef is with the iTunes store - to buy an album here costs AU$17.00 (US$17.63), a huge hike over the $10 price the US enjoys.
If I wanted an iPad, I could always import one from the US, but I can't buy an album from the US iTunes store; they refuse to sell it to me, which is a restriction of trade under Australian law, and something the ACCC has ruled is illegal, at least when applied to physical music media like CDs.
A few thoughts:
Apple may be restricted by the content providers, through different licensing schemes, on what they can sell where; so the US store may not be licensed to sell content overseas.
Even though you can access the US store; it doesn't do business in Australia so it's not really relevant to talk about restraint of trade; simple access to an online store does not constitute, IMHO, doing business in the location that is accessing the site.
It seems there would be an arbitrage opportunity for people to buy US$ iTunes cards to sell in Australia; if i recall correctly all you need is a method of of payment, not a credit card. Buy in bulk, FedEx to Aussie land, sell for a 20% markup and still be cheaper as long as the AU$ is strong.
Finally, where do I insert the comment that all the Aussie posters speak pretty good English for being citizens of a small, landlocked German speaking country?
Interestingly, the GPL places no restrictions on reusing and charging; as long as you comply with the requirements to make the source available, you can charge what you want.
I wish more software under the GPL had a pay-for-download option. Especially software in the Android marketplace. I would like to help the authors continue to make improvements and more good software. But almost invariably software that actually complies with the Open Source definition (and especially GPL software) is only available for free.
I agree. The issue is anyone can take the code and charge a bit less, making your model difficult to implement. I think Apple's walled garden actually offers the best way to do what you describe. An org such as EFF could act as the custodian and put apps on the app store. They would collect the fees and reimburse the developers. Apple would not host other instances of the same code. Granted, this works best for code from one or two developers but it could be a start to making OSS software better.
I'm one of the people who says that. And I agree with you. This isn't theft. It's a copyright violation.
Just because I think calling copyright violation 'theft' is highly misleading doesn't mean that I don't think copyright should exist. And this case, someone repackaging someone else's work in order to make a profit, is a case I think is clearly wrong.
I think we in agreement on this; without copyright the GPL would be useless. I just find the arguments that some, not necessarily you but others on /.,make to rationalize copyright violations when pirating movies, music, or software while vociferously attacking anyone who commits, or is believed to have committed, a GPL violation. I find that hypocritical, despite the long winded rationals some make. You can't have the GPL and worship at the alter of "I should be free tio use copyrighted material in any way I want even if the owner of the copyright doesn't give me permission to do so."
In this case, the software may not even violate the GPL (once the GPL's code is made available); because, as I understand it, it is permissible to wrap non-GPL code around GPL'd code if you don't actually incorporate the GPL'd code. You could, for example, create software that puts a GUI on it and even add features provided you pass the information to separate GPL'd code rather than adding it to yours. Some may disagree with that interpretation but that's as much a philosophical argument rather than a licensing one.
Interestingly, the GPL places no restrictions on reusing and charging; as long as you comply with the requirements to make the source available, you can charge what you want.
Fake Steve Jobs, of course.
Surely the behaviour of a criminal, stealing code that they didn't intend to obey the licence of?
They didn't steal anything - everyone still has the original code. No one lost anything. What they did was a copyright violation, not theft.
Isn't that the standard /. argument when someone equates copyright violations with theft?
Of course, this is the GPL so out come the pitchforks and torches...
And this will be moded down by someone who disagrees or dislikes having /. hypocrisy pointed out...
Probably because in the US you can travel 2x the distance from Spain to the UK and still not pay extra when you use your cell phone - the whole notion just because I cross on member state's border I should automatically be gouged for using a cell is a bit archaic.
Yeah, unless the distance I'm traveling just happens to take me across the border of Canada or Mexico, in which case that "archaic notion" that borders matter would still apply. Didn't NAFTA fix that?
It's one thing to consider the idea of the nation-state archaic, it's another to consider it irrelevant today.
True (although there are plans that avoid extra per day charges) - but the EU is ostensibly a "single entity' with respect to commerce and free movement of goods and people - similar in concept, if not execution, of the US' Federal system and individual states; whereas NAFTA's simply a trade agreement and not a political union. Nor does the US, Canada and Mexico have a joint military structure and political council to handle military affairs and common defense like much of the EU. I need show no passport going from Portugal to Spain to France or Germany and use the same currency, but my cell phone charges jump significantly? I can see where that is confusing and archaic; especially since the same countries often operate cross border anyway. It just lets them gouge their customers.
I bought a sim in London and then got to pay 2 pounds per day just to turn it on in Spain. What union/country/territory do you live in who's carriers have seemingly gotten it so right?
You're upset that a SIM bought in one country continued to work (for a fee) in a completely different country?
Probably because in the US you can travel 2x the distance from Spain to the UK and still not pay extra when you use your cell phone - the whole notion just because I cross on member state's border I should automatically be gouged for using a cell is a bit archaic. I mean, the EU and the US are roughly the same size and in theory the EU is a unified trading area.
MS is the typical fast followers - let someone else test the market; then jump in and take advantage of the new market while learning from the pioneer's mistakes. then push big to capture the market and crowd everyone else out. Once you're in you can expand and improve your product. It's been pretty effective for them over the years.
Can you learn a new language - sure. As another poster pointed out - is it worth it? Unless you want to compete in price with a bunch of newbies; probably not.
A development team or shop is like a baseball team
There is the rare superstar that gets top dollar because they can do things nobody else can' which is why they are rare and expensive.
There are a few solid players who have decent careers because they have a good skill set and can be depended on to deliver. they make a decent wage but no where near the superstars. They stick around.
The biggest group is the journeymen players - they hang around a few years but there is always a crop of younger, cheaper players coming up to replace them. they never get serious money. They get churned to control costs.
Then there are the managers and coaches. They are valued for their experience; they know the game, seen all the tricks and can guide a team to victory. The may not make superstar money but they are paid well and they have longevity (as long as they perform) and options to move if they do well. They stay up on the game but don't try to play. Plus they decide who gets to play, where they play and who stays and who leaves.
As others have pointed out, there's always someone whose cheaper or wiling to work for less when it's a pretty generic skill set. I'd use your experiences to move to a place where your knowledge and experience is what is valued; rather than try to build a new skill set. Learn new languages to be able to identify good vs. bad programming; but base your value on being able to identify problems before they hurt you or solve them as they come up.
I can't code a line (unless it is Fortran) but I can manage a team and clients to get the job done on schedule and budget. It can even be fun -I've never believed you need to be a jerk to be a manager.
I
I don't think I'm really all that limited by the Vic 20, vinyl records, and rotary dial phone paradigms I grew up with ;) I just see a different vision of the wireless future than you do. I would say (and prefer) that we'll see a big, very powerful central computer in the house. It talks wirelessly to the pads, and phones, and workstations (what we used to call dumb terminals), and even the appliances, lights, HVAC, etc throughout the house. It does the high-load computing, passing its output on to the devices that are using it. Some of the attached devices -the pads, etc, will have their own processors as they do today, and so will be capable of operating standalone, but will still run to the master computer when an operation would take too long to carry out.
In many ways, this has already happened. (iPad + x10 + main computer) but the integration isn't all that good. Really, we're only waiting on someone to bridge the small gaps before this is a reality.
So sure, the "desktop PC" might not be on your desktop anymore (though people will still want big screens and non-tiny input devices, and so we'll still have workstations that look very familiar) but the idea that mobile devices are going to do all of our computing for us is a very long way from fruition.
I think we are in greater agreement than we think - I don't think the tablet will replace the Desktop PC's processing power - rather, as you say, it will do the lightweight work and drop the heavy stuff off to a server and essentially become a monitor. Whether the serve is local or remote will depend n things such as costs, security concerns, bandwidth costs and availability, etc. I could see a model where remote servers contain programs on a subscription or play per view model, eliminating the need for powerful home servers. As processing power increases in low power chips tablets will be able to handle more duties as well.
To me, it's not so much that tablets will have the power to replace desktops but rathe rteh desktop paradigm is becoming increasingly irrelevant and will ultimately disappear as we know it today.
Word processing - if you think RSS is an issue with a standard keyboard that has moving keys, try tapping away on a pad for 8 hours a day.
It would last 30 minutes before it needed recharging. And the recharging cable would make it more inconvenient to use than a standard PC. :-)
Not to long ago a laptop ran a couple of hours on a charge - my Mac easily gets 6+ hours - and it's smaller than my old laptops.. Assuming today's technology limitations will exist tomorrow is a bit short sighted.
The PC, as we used to know it - a big box that runs an OS and is not very portable and ties you to specific data storage locations and programs, is on the way out. It is being replaced by smaller, portable devices that perform the same functions (which still are important) but using different technologies and in some ways a completely different a paradigm ofh ow we accomplish a task.
In some areas, yes. But this "the PC is DOOOOMED!" football that the media kicks around seemingly every 2 weeks misses the point pretty spectacularly. The reason iPads and Droids and the other mobile devices are useful is because they're connecting to "oldschool" computers, whether dedicated webservers or your home PC.
Off the top of my head I can think of a whole lot of PC-based things that it would be difficult, and in some cases impossible, to replicate on a tablet:
Word processing - if you think RSS is an issue with a standard keyboard that has moving keys, try tapping away on a pad for 8 hours a day. Plus, without the physical 3-diminsional keys to provide tactile position feedback, typing speed would plummet. So anyone that needs to write anything more than brief emails and calendar entries is going to require a PC. (and don't come back with the "but you can hook keyboards up to tablets" argument, because once you do that, you have a laptop that you have to disassemble before you take it anywhere. I'll take the normal laptop, thanks). And really, this is inclusive of anything that requires any peripheral other than a stylus.
Any sort of "real" gaming. Sure, you can do Angry Birds, Tetris, and maybe even management simulations (Sims/Sim City/etc) on a tablet, but have fun with a driving game, a flight simulation, or a FPS. I've actually seen pathetic attempts at driving games on Android, where you tilt the whole device to replicate a steering wheel. That's neat, except that when I drive the whole world generally doesn't suddenly roll 45 degrees off kilter every time I hit a corner.
Anything where you want your data to be reasonably secured, and don't want to leave a faceless corporation in charge of securing it. I'm looking at you, Cloud.
And plenty of other crap that might be doable on a tablet, but is a whole lot more convenient and comfortable to do on a standard PC (video editing - as an editor I would be pissed if someone took away my dual 24" screens and replaced them with a tiny 10" tablet - Photoshop, etc)
I see tablets as becoming mobile extensions of the home PC, but the home PC will still be around, even if much of the time it basically acts as a server for the family's mobile devices.
I think your conclusion is the most telling - the paradigm will shift from "I use a PC" to "I have these devices that let me do my task." They may be connected to a local or remote server, but they'll replace the traditional PC as the way we do things. The function is still there, but not the same form.
Take your games example - you assume I must hold the tablet - there is no reason the tablet can't switch from tablet to monitor to play games, with a separate controller wirelessly connected. Same for the keyboard - a wireless portable keyboard is possible - but why not let your phone do dual use for the few times you need a keyboard and type like you text? Or, if it has gyros, why can't it act as a mouse, when you need one, with the screen replicating buttons. My iPhone already acts a track pad, it's not hard to imagine sliding it around instead of my travel mouse. With a bluetooth headset and voice command you could even continue to use it as a phone.Again - same function, different form. This isn't going to happen overnight but it is the future.
I agree on security - but most people won't care or understand the issues. Still, a tiny home server or NAS hidden in a closet will work if they want more security- same function, different form.
In some ways, that phone / netbook combo is pointing the way things are going.
As for edit
Vacuum tubes produce a unique sound that digital doesn't replicate
I'd like to see *any study whatsoever* that demonstrates that this effect is anything but a placebo. Show me any case *at all* where somebody can consistently discern the difference between the two, all else being the same.
You've obviously never basked in the glow of tubes as your head leans against the Amp and you hear the gentle hum of the system as you fall asleep.
Seriously, here's one that discusses the technical aspects of reproduction differences:
http://milbert.com/articles/tubes_vs_transistors
You only asked for but here is another good one:
http://www.theaudioarchive.com/TAA_Resources_Tubes_versus_Solid_State.htm
Bottom line - there is a difference, due to the way they respond. Most people will never notice it
The concept of the "post-PC" is nothing more than a dressed up dumb terminal.
True. I've made that argument to tech friends - that we're really just moving back to the "big iron" server and "dumb" terminal model that was prevalent pre-PC; except we call it the "cloud" and the terminal is not as dumb as a VT-100. What's old is new again, you just have to follow the fifth rule of consulting: "If you are selling old wine in new bottles, be sure to put a fancy new label on it so no one notices."
Seems to me that the trend isn't "the death of the PC" so much as "the rise of shiny toys for simpletons who don't know how to computer"
Never underestimate the power of large groups of idiots.
Use of traditional PCs might decline among those who want to use a computer the same way they use a microwave –to do a handful of simple pre-defined tasks, without any control or knowledge of the details– and maybe that's a big market segment these days, but I can't see myself replacing my big box any time soon.
True, but the segment you described is probably a significant percentage of the market; and as they move away from the big box, two significant things will occur:
The price of the tech they are moving to will drop; and,
the price of the big box will go up (and development stagnate) as the market shrinks and demand drops.
Both of which will hasten the transition.
I prefer the form factor, the desk setup, the ability to open the thing up and tinker with it, the extra power and storage... everything.
I agree, but most people probably don't value the same things. I'd bet most uses have never even opened the case. let alone upgrade a drive, memory or graphics card. The simply use it until it becomes old and buy the new shiny.; and if it's not like the old shiny they don't care.
I'm sure there's a shiny, hiney, shinola and bite my .. joke in there somewhere. I'm just to lazy to find it.
Me: "I'll take supposedly obsolete technology for $200" Trebek: "the vacuum tube, typewriter, vinyl records, CRT and incandescent light bulbs" Me: "What are things I have in my house" *DING DING*
While in understand your point - I still have those as well, I think your comment misses the articles point:
The PC, as we used to know it - a big box that runs an OS and is not very portable and ties you to specific data storage locations and programs, is on teh way out. It is being replaced by smaller, portable devices that perform the same functions (which still are important) but using different technologies and in some ways a completely different a paradigm of ow we accomplish a task.
We still do the same things but what we use to do them changes - using your example, I still:
have a TV (but instead of a vacuum tube monster it uses solid state circuity); write letters (but with a Word processor and not a typewriter); listen to music (except it's digital not analog 90% of the time); look at a monitor (but solid state not cathode ray technology); and illuminate my room (more and more with low power bulbs rather than incandescent).
I think the real point is as technology changes previously ubiquitous things that are used to perform functions get replaced by newer things that do the same functions.
That doesn't mean the old tech is useless, it may even be better than what replaced it, but it becomes relegated to niche markets as mainstream users move to the new technology.
Vacuum tubes produce a unique sound that digital doesn't replicate - but for 99% of the market the reliability and low cost of solid state audio was good enough and so replaced tubes as the dominate product. Still, McIntosh, while a tiny part of the market, survives for those that want a different experience. All though they have gone solid state as well; but I would suppose with tighter specs than the mass market stuff.
Sometimes, even when the new stiff is better the old sticks around because it performs a task that the new tech doesn't - which is while dot matrix printers are still her as well as typewriters and fax machines.
Of course, in some cases the new tech still can't do everything old tech can - look at the pencil, for example.
The obvious application of this is advertising. Every business wants to sell something. If this research tells them how to convince you to friend them they will be all over it. Political organizations will do the same. I have to wonder if the basic concepts have broader applications outside social media.
While you probably could use it to say "do this to friend X" and there are probably some broad things that reach a large enough population it may not be all that useful for advertisers unless they want to target vary narrow groups. Now if they could put together enough variables so that only a small percentage of each is necessary to reach an audience and the entire set reaches multiple audiences then it may be useful; but we already call that marketing and advertising. They'd probably be interested in they could tell "this group is likely to be interested in buying x" where the profit is greater than the cost of reaching them; or the group is a fashion driver.
The real value of this is the pattern recognition and predictive ability; if you can predict, out of a large group, who is likely to share similar interest or be "friends" then you can target them. Not for advertising, but for other purposes. Suppose you are looking for specific skills - if you know y has them their potential friends might also have them - so you can expand a search. If you are looking for "sleeper" cells you could also use this to bring up a list of potential targets to investigate.
So, IMHO, the inherent "value" is the ability to use pattern recognition and predictive analysis to uncover potential hidden links; the ethics of that is a separate issue.
And yet here people are looking to attack Macs in the enterprise market, which is an even smaller target than Linux is in that sector. It just strikes me as odd, that if the only real protection that Linux has enjoyed is obscurity, then why is something that is even *MORE* obscure (enterprise Macintosh installations) targeted?
First, since the Mac has more name recognition than Linux it makes sense for a security researcher to focus on it rather than Linux in order to make the mainstream press.
Second, numbers put Apple's enterprise market share at around 5%, Windows at around 94%, leaving about 1% for Linux (and others). While Linux is strong in server markets, outside of specialty workstation areas it's still not a very popular desktop OS; which was what the exploit targeted.
It's my understanding that Linux has even more widespread enterprise adoption than Mac does... so does that mean that we get to see a Linux exploit next?
While Linux has a strong following in several critical areas of the enterprise, such a servers, this really wasn't about server exploits. Sure, it needed a server to work, but it really was about individual desktops and laptops being used to compromise others from an non-server machine. Since Linux has very low desktop / laptop adoption compared to even Macs I'd say it's doubtful anyone would even try to exploit it. Even if they did, someone would have to be actively looking to detect it - I doubt they'd simply submit a kernal patch to spread the exploit.
How many people are actively looking at ways to exploit Linux on the desktop? Very few I'd guess because it simply isn't a worthwhile target yet.
A social engineer has an element of deception. He flat-out asked for it.
I disagree that social engineering necessarily involves deception - it's simply using social skills to connect with the person who has the information you are seeking and convincing them to give it to you. Deception is not need to do that - you can often get what you seek simply by asking for it in a straightforward manner with, if asked, an honest explanation of why you want it. That said, he asked for it but then, according to TFA, used the information in a way that was not how he explained he planned to use it, so in this case I'd say it's not unreasonable to conclude he was being deceptive. Even so, being given someone's credentials, even if you simply asked them for it without being deceptive, does not authorize you to access their system; unless they have specific authority to grant you the right to use the credentials in such a manner.
At any rate, I think we both agree what he did was dumb considering he was in the midst of a lawsuit.
That's not all far-fetched given Cisco's abuse of the legal system in this fiasco. I'm betting Cisco had to swear to many of the outright lies used to try to have him held and extradited.
Since it appears both sides have settled their differences nothing will probably come of it; unless the US Judge was sufficiently angered to decide to teach them a lesson. Unlikely, but a federal judge is not someone you want mad at you because of legal shenanigans.
He probably thought that a Cisco employee letting him in gave him some protection. It's not like he hacked or was even dishonest, basically asking a Cisco employee up front "can I use your account to see what I can get?" You don't do that if you have illegal purposes.
The problem is doing that and then accessing the network is illegal in and of itself. He was not authorized to use it once he left (an assumption since if he was he'd still have a id and pword) and then used someone else's login who probably was not authorized to allow him to use his login credentials. Unfortunately, in the end, he was no different than any social engineer who uses his or her skills to gain access by acquiring a legitimate set of login credentials by asking for it.
Sounds like he was playing private detective to discover what access engineers had, probably worried Cisco would switch around permissions if the info were asked for in the suit. Given that he would have had this type of access as a Cisco employee, I'm betting that he was checking to see if such access still existed for engineers, probably in response to Cisco saying engineers didn't have that kind of access.
If Cisco did that they would be in a world of trouble when it was found out. Courts don't take lightly destroying evidence or committing perjury. I was involve in a potential suit a while ago and the first thing our lawyers did was collect everyone's notes, disks, papers etc. pertaining to the issue and keep them safe so if they had to turn them over they could without any getting destroyed in the interim.
It is the antitrust suit he had going against Cisco. Cisco had locked out any other company that might want to provide maintenance for Cisco products, and that was the business his company was in, so he sued. He had been gathering evidence to use in the case against Cisco, and of course Cisco didn't want that.
Separate from the supposed anti-trust actions of Cisco, why would anyone do something that could be used against them by someone they were suing? You're basically giving them the club to beat you with; if you really need that information you should try to get it through the legal process. I have no idea what his motivations were, it just strikes me as odd to expose yourself the way he apparently did knowing your opponent is a very large company who can buy boatloads of legal advice.